Madras High Court
M.Ahmadh Hussain ... Review vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 30 November, 2021
Rev.Aplw.No.77 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 30.11.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI
Rev.Aplw.No.77 of 2021
in
WP.No.35552 of 2019
and
WMP(MD)No.12239 of 2021
1.M.Ahmadh Hussain ... Review
Petitioner
Vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu
Represented by its Secretary to Government,
Health and Family Welfare Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Medical Council of India,
MCI building, Pocket -14,
Sector -8, Dwaraka Phase-I,
New Delhi – 110 077.
3.The Director of Indian Medicine and Homeopathy,
Arignar Anna Government Hospital of
Indian Medicine Campus,
Arumbakkam, Chennai – 600 016.
4.The Special Commissioner,
Joint Director,
Indian Medicine and Homeopathy,
Arignar Anna Government Hospital of
Indian Medicine Campus,
Arumbakkam, Chennai – 600 016.
5.The Selection Committee,
Directorate of Indian Medicine and Homeopathy,
Arignar Anna Government Hospital of
Indian Medicine Campus,
Arumbakkam, Chennai – 600 016.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/11
Rev.Aplw.No.77 of 2021
6.The Director,
National Eligibility -cum-Entrance Test (NEET),
Noida, Uttar Pradesh. ...Respondents
PRAYER:- Review Application filed under Article 137
of the Constitution of India, against the order dated
07.04.2021, passed by this Court in
W.P.No.35552 of 2019.
For Review Petitioner : Mr.Raguvaran Goplan
For Respondent : Mr.C.Kathiravan
ORDER
This review application has been filed challenging
the order dated 07.04.2021, passed by this Court in
W.P.No.35552 of 2019.
2.Perusal of records show that this Court, on
07.04.2021 passed the following order:
“7.As per the order of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in S.L.P.No.14320 of 2018 dated
29.04.2019, the interim relief has been
granted to those candidates who have obtained
their qualification from National Institute
of Open Schooling (NIOS), as a temporary
arrangement. The final decision is yet to be
taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Rev.Aplw.No.77 of 2021
Considering the interim orders passed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Court by order
dated 15.02.2021, permitted the petitioner to
participate in the counselling scheduled to
commence from 15.02.2021. Further, it is
reported that the petitioner has not appeared
for the NEET examination for the academic
year 2020-2021. The petitioner has filed this
writ petition based on his eligibility of
appearance of NEET examination in the year
2019.
8.As per the guidelines of the sixth
respondent, the results of the NEET cannot be
carried over for the subsequent year.
Moreover, the interim relief granted by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court on the eligibility of
the candidates, who have obtained their
qualification through NIOS, is subject to the
result of Special Leave Petition pending
before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the same
has been granted only as an interim
arrangement to those, who have approached the
Hon'ble Supreme Court. The petitioner, who
have appeared in the NEET examination in the
year 2019, cannot seek for an admission based
on those marks, for the academic year 2020
-2021.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Rev.Aplw.No.77 of 2021
9.Accordingly, this writ petition stands
dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petitions are closed.”
3.Before venturing into any discussion on the rival
contentions, this Court may point out that the power of
Courts in matters of review is very limited. Such power
can be exercised only when there is an error apparent on
the face of the record and in that event if an order is
not reviewed, it would amount to miscarriage of justice.
For the said proposition, this Court may usefully refer
to the Judgment of a Division Bench of this Court, in
Union of India, Rep. by the Senior Divisional Commercial
Manager, Chennai, Vs. The Registrar, Central
Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, reported in CDJ
2014 MHC 241, wherein the Hon'ble Division Bench has
made a complete survey of several Judgments of the
Supreme Court, on this question, and has ultimately, in
Paragraph No.10, held as follows:-
"10. In yet another Judgment reported in
2013 (8) SCC 320, [Kamlesh Verma Vs. Mayawati and
others], the Hon'ble Apex Court, after examining
various Judgments passed earlier has held as
follows:
"12. This Court has repeatedly held in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Rev.Aplw.No.77 of 2021
various Judgments that the jurisdiction and
scope of review is not that of an appeal and
it can be entertained only there is an error
apparent on the face of record. A mere
repetition through different counsel, of old
and overrulled arguments, a second trip over
ineffectually covered grounds or minor
mistakes of inconsequential import are
obviously insufficient......."
In the above Judgment, the Hon'ble Apex
Court has laid down the principles as under:
"19. In review jurisdiction, mere
disagreement with the view of the Judgment
cannot be the ground for invoking the same.
As long as the point is already dealt with
and answered, the parties are not entitled to
challenge the impugned Judgment in the guise
that an alternative view is possible under
the review jurisdiction.
Summary of the principles:
20. Thus, in view of the above, the
following grounds of review are maintainable,
as stipulated by the statute:
20.1 When the review will be
maintainable:-
(i). Discovery of new and important
matter or evidence which, after the exercise
of due diligence, was not within knowledge of
the petitioner or could not be produced by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Rev.Aplw.No.77 of 2021
him;
(ii). Mistake or error apparent on the
face of record;
(iii). Any other sufficient reason.
The words 'any other sufficient reason"
has been interpreted in Chhajju Ram Vs. Neki,
AIR 1922 PC 112 and approved by this Court in
Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos Vs. Most
Rev.Mar Poulose Athanasius & others [1955] 1
SCR 520, to mean, "a reason sufficient on
grounds at least analogous to those specified
in the rule". The same principles have been
reiterated in Union of India Vs. Sandur
Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd., ors., JT (2013) 8
SC 275.
20.2. When the review will not be
maintainable:-
(i) A repetition of old and overruled
argument is not enough to reopen concluded
adjudications.
(ii). Minor mistakes of inconsequential
import.
(iii). Review proceedings cannot be
equated with the original hearing of the
case.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Rev.Aplw.No.77 of 2021
(iv). Review is not maintainable, unless
the material error, manifest on the face of
the order, undermine its soundness or results
in miscarriage of justice.
(v)A review is by no means an appeal in
disguise whereby an erroneous decision is re-
heard and corrected but lies only for patent
error.
(vi). The mere possibility of two views
on the subject cannot be a ground for review.
(vii). The error apparent on the face of
the record should not be an error which has
to be fished out and searched.
(viii). The appreciation of evidence on
record is fully within the domain of the
appellate Court, it cannot be permitted to be
advanced in the review petition.
(ix). Review is not maintainable when the
same relief sought at the time of arguing the
main matter had been negatived."
4.Learned Counsel for the review petitioner
submitted that in an identical issue the Odissa High
Court has granted such a similar relief. Therefore, he
prays for allowing the present review application.
5.It is seen that the petitioner has not appeared
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Rev.Aplw.No.77 of 2021
for the NEET Examination for the academic year 2020-21.
However, he has filed the writ petition based on his
eligibility of appearance of NEET Examination in the
year 2019. As per the Regulation 2(d)(ii) of the Indian
Medicine Central Council (Minimum Standards of Education
in Indian Medicine) Amendment Regulations, 2018 and
Regulation 4(A)(ii) of Homeopathy (Degree Course)
Amendment Regulations, 2018, the results of the NEET for
a particular academic year cannot be carried forwarded
for the subsequent year. The relevant provision is
extracted hereunder :
“in order to be eligible for admission to
undergraduate course for an academic year,
it shall be necessary for a candidate to
obtain minimum of marks at 50 th percentile
in the “National Eligibility Entrance Test
For Undergraduate Course” held for the
said academic year.”
6.Insofar as the interim relief granted by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court, is concerned, it was restricted
only to those candidates, who have approached the
Hon'ble Supreme Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Rev.Aplw.No.77 of 2021
7.The petitioner has not made out any case for
entertaining this review application and accordingly the
same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petition is closed.
30.11.2021
To
1.The Secretary to Government,
Health and Family Welfare Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Medical Council of India,
MCI building, Pocket -14,
Sector -8, Dwaraka Phase-I,
New Delhi – 110 077.
3.The Director of Indian Medicine and Homeopathy,
Arignar Anna Government Hospital of
Indian Medicine Campus,
Arumbakkam, Chennai – 600 016.
4.The Special Commissioner,
Joint Director,
Indian Medicine and Homeopathy,
Arignar Anna Government Hospital of
Indian Medicine Campus,
Arumbakkam, Chennai – 600 016.
5.The Selection Committee,
Directorate of Indian Medicine and Homeopathy,
Arignar Anna Government Hospital of
Indian Medicine Campus,
Arumbakkam, Chennai – 600 016.
6.The Director,
National Eligibility -cum-Entrance Test (NEET),
Noida, Uttar Pradesh.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Rev.Aplw.No.77 of 2021
B.PUGALENDHI,J.
dsk
Rev.Aplw.No.77 of 2021
in
WP.No.35552 of 2019
and
WMP(MD)No.12239 of 2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Rev.Aplw.No.77 of 2021
30.11.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
